Thirty-Three Famous Physicists Sign Angry Letter About the Origin of the Universe

[C C]

http://gizmodo.com/thirty-three-famous-p...1795101181

EXCERPT: Cosmologists are in the business of figuring out how and why we got here. But if you call their work unscientific, you’re sure to set off a nerve. A recent story in Scientific American managed to irk a whole bunch of these thinkers, so much that 33 of them (four of whom have Nobel prizes) signed a letter in response. Signatories included Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Lisa Randall, and others who’ve written books and lectured to the world about how all we got here. At the center of the controversy is a popular theory that our universe inflated like a balloon right after the Big Bang. One group of scientists essentially said this theory wasn’t science—which is like calling artist’s work “not art,” or a chef’s “not food.”

Physicists Anna Ijjas and Paul J. Steinhardt from Princeton, and Abraham Loeb from Harvard, wrote the initial story, titled “Pop Goes the Universe” and published it in Scientific American this past February. They challenged inflation, a collection of scientific models first proposed by Alan Guth around 1980 positing that immediately after the Big Bang, the universe expanded exponentially like an inflating balloon before settling down into the one we live in today. The authors stated that astronomical observations have constrained inflation in a way that makes the remaining models in support of it unlikely. Instead, the authors’ story bolstered a competing theory, that the universe “bounced back” to where it is today after a collapse. (You can learn more about various theories for the formation of our universe, and this ongoing debate, here).

Steinhardt has written articles like this for Scientific American before. But a particular line in the most recent article’s conclusion set people off: “...Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.” In other words, Steinhardt argues, the dominant theory for the formation of our universe isn’t testable, and thus, not real science. [...] The response letter, also published in Scientific American, sums up the physicists’ complaints....

MORE: http://gizmodo.com/thirty-three-famous-p...1795101181

[RainbowUnicorn]

http://gizmodo.com/thirty-three-famous-p...1795101181

EXCERPT: Cosmologists are in the business of figuring out how and why we got here. But if you call their work unscientific, you’re sure to set off a nerve. A recent story in Scientific American managed to irk a whole bunch of these thinkers, so much that 33 of them (four of whom have Nobel prizes) signed a letter in response. Signatories included Stephen Hawking, Leonard Susskind, Lisa Randall, and others who’ve written books and lectured to the world about how all we got here. At the center of the controversy is a popular theory that our universe inflated like a balloon right after the Big Bang. One group of scientists essentially said this theory wasn’t science—which is like calling artist’s work “not art,” or a chef’s “not food.”

Physicists Anna Ijjas and Paul J. Steinhardt from Princeton, and Abraham Loeb from Harvard, wrote the initial story, titled “Pop Goes the Universe” and published it in Scientific American this past February. They challenged inflation, a collection of scientific models first proposed by Alan Guth around 1980 positing that immediately after the Big Bang, the universe expanded exponentially like an inflating balloon before settling down into the one we live in today. The authors stated that astronomical observations have constrained inflation in a way that makes the remaining models in support of it unlikely. Instead, the authors’ story bolstered a competing theory, that the universe “bounced back” to where it is today after a collapse. (You can learn more about various theories for the formation of our universe, and this ongoing debate, here).

Steinhardt has written articles like this for Scientific American before. But a particular line in the most recent article’s conclusion set people off: “...Inflationary cosmology, as we currently understand it, cannot be evaluated using the scientific method.” In other words, Steinhardt argues, the dominant theory for the formation of our universe isn’t testable, and thus, not real science. [...] The response letter, also published in Scientific American, sums up the physicists’ complaints....

MORE: http://gizmodo.com/thirty-three-famous-p...1795101181

i have been wondering how many christian fanatics have been parading in the wings waiting to try and propose creationism by undermining the basic scientific model.
i have been expecting them to crawl out of the gutter for the last couple of years.
Pretending to be scientists & pretending to have peer credibility etc...
they must be just about finished with climate change denying by now to form their fanatical blind followers enough to cross the tracks into seeking to gain ground by attacking the very nature of scientific method.
expecting cult membership to skyrock as their offspring become sociopaths etc...

[Syne]

First, a "bounce back" from a previous collapse is even further removed from scientific testing than inflationary models. The former merely presumes a cause for the inflationary energy that "cannot be evaluated using the scientific method".
Second, there is nothing in inflationary models in conflict with any Christian beliefs. But you'd know that if you understood the basics of either.

[RainbowUnicorn]

First, a "bounce back" from a previous collapse is even further removed from scientific testing than inflationary models. The former merely presumes a cause for the inflationary energy that "cannot be evaluated using the scientific method".
Second, there is nothing in inflationary models in conflict with any Christian beliefs. But you'd know that if you understood the basics of either.

i am aware that the basic big bang theory and sudden expansion fits the biblical christian models of creation.
i am not referring to the moderate christians who develop scientific theory.
i am referring to those who seek to undermine science for personal power to assert their own control over blind believers.
i am referring to the cult like groups who seek to try and pretend they know science so they can then assert their power of absolute knowledge over their congregation who are taught to not question their authority or words.

bubble theory lends to bounce-back fairly strongly.
i do not see much merit in the bounceback theory as it is not supported with dark matter and dark energy.
they directly contradict the bounce-back theory.

[Syne]

So...conspiracy theories.

[RainbowUnicorn]

So...conspiracy theories.

climate change conspiracy theoriest who think climate change is a big ruse etc ?
Climate change denier/climate change conspiracy theoriest same thing....

no i am not referring to them.
though they do appear to be a larger more heteroginus group when they have a slogan to shout & the chance of being on tv or getting a little bit of attention.

[Syne]

No, I'm talking about your personal and delusional conspiracy theory about people trying to undermine science for personal power. Especially when you seem to be exactly what you describe, e.g. subject to your own "cult like groups who seek to try and pretend they know science so they can then assert their power of absolute knowledge over [you] who are taught to not question their authority or words". Every time you repeat myths such as 97% of "all scientists" agree, you are doing just that.

The only thing most people deny about AGW is that it is imminently catastrophic...which is a paranoiac's fantasy. Everyone agrees that the climate changes...as it always has...and that humans have some impact...how much is disputable. Some people just don't think thousands to millions should die at the cost of trillions to keep the average temperature from rising a few degrees over several decades.

[RainbowUnicorn]

No, I'm talking about your personal and delusional conspiracy theory about people trying to undermine science for personal power. Especially when you seem to be exactly what you describe, e.g. subject to your own "cult like groups who seek to try and pretend they know science so they can then assert their power of absolute knowledge over [you] who are taught to not question their authority or words". Every time you repeat myths such as 97% of "all scientists" agree, you are doing just that.

The only thing most people deny about AGW is that it is imminently catastrophic...which is a paranoiac's fantasy. Everyone agrees that the climate changes...as it always has...and that humans have some impact...how much is disputable. Some people just don't think thousands to millions should die at the cost of trillions to keep the average temperature from rising a few degrees over several decades.

"so you are you said you are but what am i"
is not really a position of discussion.
... moving on...
i am attempting to unravel this sentence of yours so i understand its various implied meanings.

Some people just don't think thousands to millions should die at the cost of trillions to keep the average temperature from rising a few degrees over several decades.

cost to who ? if its the working class funding it then why should the working class be denied the right to choose how and what should be spent ?

"die"/death the actual death is relative to the distribution of wealth and the process of managed and/or forced migration...
thus purely subjective to an ends of emotive by way of deliberate ignorant collusion.

"keeping the average temperature from rising a few degrees"
the raft of probable conclusions is that several degrees of warming would raise sea level by 10 meters which would cost many trillions to al those capital citys in the world which would be submerged and/or need re-locating at mind boggling fincial cost and resources.

who is affected ?
whos money ?
who gets to choose ?
how much does it cost ?

... i am not going to disect your emotive lambaste Re conspiracy theoris as you clearly have something distracting you. what ever that is i hope it settles for you soon.

[Syne]

Hey, if you're not denying that you believe nonsense like "97% of scientists agree" and take what these people say on their authority/word alone, so be it. I'm not a churchgoer (nor isolate myself to one-sided news/info sources), so even if your conspiracy theory were true, it wouldn't apply to me.

Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. But the details of the reports make it clear that when you factor in real-world issues—such as delays in developing and implementing technology and policy—the cost of solving climate change gets much higher. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by the International Energy Agency.
...
Last month a major report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030. It also noted that reducing emissions would reduce the rate of economic growth (as a result of such factors as higher energy prices).
...
Aside from delays in action, many other factors will increase costs. Costs will go up if countries don’t all work together. They’ll also increase if technologies don’t work as expected. The most glaring example has to do with technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide. According to the IPCC, if this technology can’t be deployed, the cost of stabilizing greenhouse-gas levels will more than double (see “The Cost of Limiting Climate Change Could Double without Carbon Capture Technology”).
- https://www.technologyreview.com/s/52719...te-change/

Higher energy prices will increase the cost of everything, hurting the lower and middle classes the most. Even if we get all countries to work together, removing fossil fuels from already struggling third-world countries will lead to deaths...not to mention those on fixed incomes who can't afford the energy costs in first-world countries.

It's the rich who can afford beachfront property, that might be lost due to rising sea levels. You want to working class to pay to save their property? The top 1% also pay the most taxes...37.80% of all federal income taxes compared to the bottom 50% of taxpayers only paying 2.78%. And sea level will not rise overnight, but gradually over decades, providing ample time to make provisions for those who need help.

[RainbowUnicorn]

Hey, if you're not denying that you believe nonsense like "97% of scientists agree" and take what these people say on their authority/word alone, so be it. I'm not a churchgoer (nor isolate myself to one-sided news/info sources), so even if your conspiracy theory were true, it wouldn't apply to me.

Major reports are concluding that stabilizing greenhouse-gas emissions to avoid catastrophic climate change is possible and can be done at a relatively low cost. But the details of the reports make it clear that when you factor in real-world issues—such as delays in developing and implementing technology and policy—the cost of solving climate change gets much higher. Switching from fossil fuels to low-carbon sources of energy will cost $44 trillion between now and 2050, according to a report released this week by the International Energy Agency.
...
Last month a major report from the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change  said that efforts to stabilize levels of greenhouse-gas emissions would require investments of about $13 trillion through 2030. It also noted that reducing emissions would reduce the rate of economic growth (as a result of such factors as higher energy prices).
...
Aside from delays in action, many other factors will increase costs. Costs will go up if countries don’t all work together. They’ll also increase if technologies don’t work as expected. The most glaring example has to do with technology for capturing and storing carbon dioxide. According to the IPCC, if this technology can’t be deployed, the cost of stabilizing greenhouse-gas levels will more than double (see “The Cost of Limiting Climate Change Could Double without Carbon Capture Technology”).
- https://www.technologyreview.com/s/52719...te-change/

Higher energy prices will increase the cost of everything, hurting the lower and middle classes the most. Even if we get all countries to work together, removing fossil fuels from already struggling third-world countries will lead to deaths...not to mention those on fixed incomes who can't afford the energy costs in first-world countries.

It's the rich who can afford beachfront property, that might be lost due to rising sea levels. You want to working class to pay to save their property?   The top 1% also pay the most taxes...37.80% of all federal income taxes compared to the bottom 50% of taxpayers only paying 2.78%. And sea level will not rise overnight, but gradually over decades, providing ample time to make provisions for those who need help.

Blatently untrue

The top 1% also pay the most taxes...37.80% of all federal income taxes compared to the bottom 50% of taxpayers only paying 2.78%.

https://www.irs.com/articles/2015-federa...deductions

2015 Income Tax Brackets. The Federal income tax has 7 tax brackets: 10%, 15%, 25%, 28%, 33%, 35%, and 39.6%. The amount of tax you owe depends on your filing status and income level. It's important to realize that moving into a higher tax bracket does not mean that all of your income will be taxed at a higher rate.Sep 30, 2015

The majority of the top 1% pay income tax on their salarys but pay little to no tax on their capital investment profit that is not taxed as they have the vast majority of their wealth in stocks and bonds which they do not use to create pure income which can be taxed as income.
it surprises me you are either not aware of this or are singing someones song.

And sea level will not rise overnight, but gradually over decades, providing ample time to make provisions for those who need help.

scientists including physacists geologists climatologists computing scientists
oceanographers(scientists studying the ocean)
all tend to agree that the rate of warming is unknown to its factor of potential expotential warming.
we only need 5 meters which is from around 4 degrees to then melt iceland and greenland which will suddenly rise another 5 meters.

this is what they tend to agree with if the current massive super computer that is modelling the global temperature increase is correct in its probably expotential effect.
they are not 100% obviousely but the data is starting to look like the warming process will dramatically speed up as temperatures increase by only a couple of degrees.
my guess is around 3 degrees from now will be a tipping point once we pass a total of roughly 4 or 5 degrees in rise from our current point.
this will effect most majour citys and the millions of working class who work in them and the hundreds of millions if not a few billion who rely on those citys to sell their goods and services to.

thats the current situation.
they are still working with the modelling to try and figure out wherethe tipping point is as it appears to be one going on historic climate data found in various places including noth & south pole ice studys and archiology studys showing types of plant and animal life in the arctic and various melt rates documented by the discovery of life forms algae included in ice that dates back tens of thousands of years, and in some places millions fo years.